I don't see how we can avoid noticing anymore. Dana Milbank explores the territory using polite language but it's nonetheless damning. He believes Rick Santorum is very close to the edge -- perhaps with one foot already dangling in space.
In explaining why his remark over the weekend wasn’t linking Obama to Hitler, Santorum said that “the World War II metaphor is one I’ve used a hundred times.” This is not an exaggeration — and that’s Santorum’s problem.
Nazi comparisons are the most extreme form of political speech; once one ties his political opponents to the most deplorable chapter in human history, all reasoned argument ceases.
Yet this is where Santorum exists, in a place of binary extremes of good and evil, where his political foe isn’t just wrong but adheres to a “phony theology” not found in the Bible. His frequent tendency to go from zero to Nazi over ordinary political disagreements is typical of the emotional appeal he has to conservative primary voters, but it also shows why he’s outside the bounds major political parties have applied to their past presidential nominees. ...The problem is Santorum is such a stranger to democratic give-and-take that he thinks it’s okay to label everybody else as Nazis. ...Dana Milbank, WaPo
Most Democrats don't bother to defend themselves against a crazy like Santorum. In fact, one commenter on Milbank's column writes: "Could you tone it down guys? It's important not to out Santorum as a certified loon until after he wins the nomination."
As far as whether extremism and fascism play defining roles in the Republican party now, I think their candidates have gone far enough that it's up to Republicans to prove they're not extremists. It's no longer incumbent on Dems to prove that they are. That's a measure how far the right has gone into lunacy.
___
Milbank's comments have an echo at the Times where Maureen Dowd writes that, contrary to what some believe, Santorum is not exactly Savonarola.
That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah. ...Dowd, NYT
And Santorum's protests that he isn't really all that extreme just don't work for Dowd (or for most of us!).
I’ve spent a career watching candidates deny they would do things that they went on to do as president, and watching presidents let their personal beliefs, desires and insecurities shape policy decisions.
Mullah Rick is casting doubt on issues of women’s health and safety that were settled a long time ago. We’re supposed to believe that if he got more power he’d drop his crusade?
The Huffington Post reports that Santorum told Philadelphia Magazine in 1995 that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.” Then, he said, he read the “scientific literature.”
He seems to have decided that electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues. ...Dowd, NYT
And then Dowd zeroes in on the scariest issue: Republican big government.
Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives? ...Dowd, NYT
The most intrusive, sleazy martinet of a government is what Republicans promise, quite the opposite of what they say. They want to keep watch on every aspect of your life you once thought were "private." Remember "private"? And old-fashioned word. So old-fashioned as to be quaint.
